underwear, thus allowing their clothes to be searched while avoiding complete nudity. The instructions of the national police customarily distinguish between frisk searches (as implemented on admission to stadiums for example) and security searches. When the latter consist of strip searches, they have to comply with certain procedural requirements (they have to be ordered by an OPJ41). The “intermediate” searches (security searches without total removal of clothes) dealt with here (in truth, much closer to strip searches than to a frisking) dispense with the need for any procedure (orders, traceability) since none is provided for. They can lend themselves to humiliation which, without reaching the level of that which can occur in the course of security searches, are nonetheless real for all that. The requirements to which they correspond are unclear: either the person concerned does not present any special signs of danger, in which case frisking is sufficient; or, if the opposite is established, a security search can then be justified. Practices whose implementation does not correspond to any definite objective should not be instituted. Unless such “intermediate” searches are considered sufficient in the most problematic cases; if so, strip searches should be avoided. This is the choice made by the Act of 14th April 2011: security strip searches are not to be used simply for the purposes of security in police custody (but only when the constraints of investigation make them essential and in the absence of other means; article 63-7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). But in case of suspicions, security searches make it possible to inspect clothing without complete undressing. “Intermediate” searches are thus justified. They cannot however, any more than strip searches, be systematic in nature. Such is nevertheless the case noted in half of the police stations not making use of strip searches in the observations made before the Act of 2011. Subsequent inspection reports will show whether the Act has been sufficient to ensure changes in practice. With regard, in the second place, to general use of the practice of taking away brassières from women placed in police custody The practice appears to be in use on a massive scale, in thirteen out of fifteen police stations, with the exception of two in which its use is not entirely general. In addition, for the last police station but one (VilleneuveSaint-Georges), the information obtained does not appear to be certain (once again due to the difficulty of establishing the veracity of facts); for the last, it was not possible to obtain any information42. In other words, to far greater extent even than searches, the removal of brassieres appears to be a fundamental guarantee of security in police work. It nevertheless needs to be recalled that in the memorandum of 8th February 2008 (in response to the ministerial directive of 11th March 2003, the Director General of the French national police force recalled that a person may be “asked to remove a piece of underwear” (ah! such gentlemanly terms…), and bras in particular, from the moment that the wearing thereof may constitute a danger for them. Indisputably, the wearing of brassières in police stations is always a source of danger. We shall not here repeat what the Contrôle Général has been writing with consistency, and even stubborn insistence, but without any illusions, since its annual report for 200843. We shall only recall that the reason for this 41 In particular since the ministerial directive of 11th March 2003. This requirement has been included in Code of Criminal Procedure since 2011 (article 63-7). 42 It is nevertheless easier to identify the implementation of taking away of brassières by examining the lists of personal effects taken from people placed in police custody, without trusting to the declarations of officers alone. 43 P. 113 et seq. 42